ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Research Article
Revised

Comparison of accidental pediatric scald burns in a tertiary care center: hot cauldron burns versus accidental spill burns

[version 2; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 10 Jan 2022
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Scald burns result from exposure to high-temperature fluids and are more common in the pediatric age group. They occur mainly by two mechanisms: (i) spill and (ii) immersion (hot cauldron) burns. These two patterns differ in clinical characteristics and outcomes. Scalds cause significant morbidity and mortality in children. The objective of this study was to compare accidental spill burns and hot cauldron burns in a hospital setting.
Methods: An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted by reviewing the secondary data of scald cases admitted during the years 2019 and 2020 in a burn-dedicated tertiary care center. Total population sampling was adopted. Data analysis was done partly using SPSS, version-23, and Stata-15. Mann Whitney U-test and Chi-square/Fisher's exact test were done appropriately to find associations between different variables. Binary regression analysis was performed taking mortality events as the outcome of interest.
Results: Out of 108 scald cases, 43 (39.8%) had hot cauldron burns and 65 (60.2%) had accidental spill burns. Overall mortality was 16 (14.8%), out of which hot cauldron burns and accidental spill burns comprised 12 (75.0%) and 4 (25.0%), respectively. Binary logistic regression analysis showed the type of scald, age, and Baux score found to be associated with mortality. Every one-year increment in age had a 29% lower odds of occurrence of mortality event (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.99, p=0.042). Likewise, every one-point increment in Baux score was associated with 19% higher odds of mortality (adjusted OR, 1.190; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; p<0.001).
Conclusions: Accidental spill burn was more common but mortality was significantly higher for hot cauldron burns. The risk of mortality was significantly higher in burn events occurring outside the house, and burns involving back, buttocks, perineum, and lower extremities.

Keywords

accidental, pediatric, burns, immersion

Revised Amendments from Version 1

This is the first revised version of the article after post-publication reviewers' comments. In this version, we have clarified the objectives of the study. The conclusion section has been edited to make it more aligned with the objectives. Minor grammatical errors have been corrected. Previously, we had used the term "multinomial logistic regression" which was a blunder. We have replaced it with binomial logistic regression because our dependent variables at two different levels of comparison (i.e. types of burns and mortality-yes/no) were dichotomous. Likewise, there were some errors related to using of abbreviations. These have been corrected accordingly.

See the authors' detailed response to the review by Saidur Rahman Mashreky

Introduction

Scald burns are the most common types of burn injuries in children throughout the world.1,2 These injuries are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population.3,4 They have long-term physical, psychological and economic impacts on the patients and their families. The majority of scald injuries occur at home and most of them are accidental and preventable.57

Scalds result from exposure to hot liquids or steam. They occur mainly by two mechanisms: (i) spill and (ii) immersion burns.810 Accidental spill burns are due to spillage of hot liquid such as boiling water, tea, milk, oil, soup, etc. These burns usually happen if a child gets in the way of an adult carrying hot fluids or accidentally play with the utensils filled with hot liquid and spill over their body. Immersion burns take place when children fall or put their hands/feet into a vessel containing hot liquid such as bathtub, tea/coffee pots, hot cauldrons, etc.3,6,1114 Past studies have shown that the patterns of these two scalds differ widely for different age groups, gender, and body parts involved, with differences in hospital stay and outcomes secondary to extent of burns.6,1517

The study of different types of scalds can help to control or reduce the predisposing factors and ultimately help in formulating plans and strategies for prevention. This study aimed to compare accidental spill and immersion (hot cauldron) scald burns in different aspects in a tertiary care center. Moreover, the factors affecting mortality were also studied.

Methods

Study setting

The study was conducted in the tertiary care center Kirtipur Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal. It is a national referral center for the management of burn injuries. This hospital has 100 beds in total. Out of these, 32 beds are allocated for burn cases only; of which eight are in Burn Intensive Care Unit (BICU). It takes care of the whole spectrum of burn cases from acute care to the full range of reconstructive services and rehabilitation.

Study description and variables

This was a single-center, analytical, cross-sectional study carried out by reviewing the secondary data of scald burn cases admitted during two years (2019 and 2020). In this study, comparison was done at two different levels. Firstly, the types of burns, namely hot cauldron burns (HCB) and accidental spill burns (ASB) were analyzed in terms of socio-demographic factors, clinical features at presentation, in-hospital treatment measures and associated outcome (i.e. mortality). Next, comparison was done between survivors and non-survivors in terms of socio-demographic factors, presenting features and treatment measures. Out of all scalds, only pediatric cases (age < 18 years) were included in our study. Secondary data was collected from hospital records maintained in electronic form which included all of the acute scald cases admitted to the Plastic Surgery Ward and BICU. Scald cases managed on an outpatient basis were excluded from the study. Total population sampling was used. Those cases with incomplete records were excluded.

The data extracted from the patients' electronic records and stored in our database included demographic information like age, gender, and address of residence. All the immersion injury cases presented to our center had occurred due to falling into cauldrons filled with boiling water containing shredded straw and husk to feed cattle, which is commonly used in Nepal. Spill burns occurred due to spillage of hot liquids (boiling water, tea, coffee, milk, and oil). The mechanism of scalds was categorized into two broad groups: hot cauldron burns (HCB) and accidental spill burns (ASB). Data related to burn injury included type (mechanisms) of scalds, place of burn, pre-hospital intravenous fluid use, presence of infection at presentation, total body surface area, and body parts involved. Likewise, data of in-hospital interventions such as blood transfusion, escharotomy, necrosectomy, tangential excision, second excision, use of graft and/or flap, amputation were also taken. Outcome variables like duration of hospital stay and mortality were also noted.

Since we were collecting data from patients’ electronic records, there was possibility that the hospital staffs might have made errors during data entry in the records. This could give rise to information bias in our study. To reduce it to minimum, we cross-checked every information with patients’ admission files stored in hospital administratin section itself. Next, all the eligible cases were included in the study. So, there was minimal chance of selection bias as well.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was taken from the Institutional Review Committee (IRC no. 006-2021), phect-NEPAL. Before conducting the study, permission was taken from the Department of Burns, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. The anonymity of patient information was well-maintained and thus patient consent was waived by the ethical review board.

Statistics

Shapiro-Wilk W test showed that our continuous variables were distributed non-normally, so median and inter-quartile range (IQR) were calculated. Among categorical variables, Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test was applied to check the association between independent and dependent variables. Frequency and percentages were presented appropriately in tables. The level of significance was taken as p < 0.05, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) considering a 5% standard error. The analysis was run partly using IBM SPSS version 23, and Stata version 15.

Logistic regression

The dependent variable was mortality outcome, while the rest of the other variables affecting mortality were independent variables. For regression analysis, the outcome of interest as mortality event was taken and those who died in course of treatment were labeled as 1, and those who survived were labeled as 0. Initially binary logistic regression was run to see the effect of individual variables in mortality outcome. Only those variables which were found to be associated in Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test and significant continuous variables (age, length of hospital stay, and Baux score) were taken for logistic regression analysis. Later, binary logistic regression analysis was performed to check the exact effect of independent variables adjusting to the rest of the variables to check and nullify the confounding effect of different variables evaluated. Unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for binary logistic regression and adjusted OR were presented with 95% CIs. The pseudo R2 value for binary logistic regression analysis was 0.5367, indicating that our model predicts a similar outcome in about 54% of observations. Multicollinearity across the studied variables was automatically tested by Stata software and no observed variables were omitted across selected variables for binary logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 120 pediatric patients with scald burns were admitted during the two-year period. Out of them, 12 were excluded from our study due to their incomplete records. Finally, 108 cases were analyzed.23 Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. The median age of the patients was 2.8 (IQR = 1.6-4.0) years. In total, 61 (56.5%) of them were male and 47 (43.5%) were female. The majority of the burn injuries occurred in the kitchen (57.4%) and most of the patients were from the Low mountain region (60.2%) of Nepal.

Table 1. Cross-tabulation of different variables with the type of scalds.

SNCharacteristicsTotal n(%)HCB n(%)ASB n(%)p-value
1.N108(100.0)43(39.8)65(60.2)
2.Age (in years)2.8(1.6-4.0)3(2.0-4.0)2.5(1.3-4.0)0.362
3.Sex (males)61(100.0)25(41.0)36(59.0)0.777
4.Place of Burns:0.152
Kitchen62(100.0)21(33.9)41(66.1)
Inside house41(100.0)21(51.2)20(48.8)
Outside5(100.0)1(20.0)4(80.0)
5.Baux Score17.0(11.6-25.8)17.5(14.0-27.0)16.0(10.5-23.5)0.307
6.Total Body Surface Area (TBSA)15.0(8.0-20.0)15.0(8.0-22.0)15.0(8.0-19.0)0.463
7.Body parts involved:
Head and Neck22(100.0)6 (27.3)16 (72.7)0.178
Face38(100.0)11(28.9)27(71.1)0.089
Chest40(100.0)15(37.5)25(62.5)0.706
Abdomen36(100.0)15(41.7)21(58.3)0.781
Back31(100.0)14(45.2)17(54.8)0.471
Buttock29 (100.0)15(51.7)14(48.3)0.126
Perineum9(100.0)5(55.6)4(44.4)0.479
Upper Extremities53(100.0)20(37.7)33(62.3)0.665
Hands44(100.0)16(36.4)28(63.6)0.544
Lower Extremities60(100.0)24(40.0)36(60.0)0.965
8.Pre-hospital Intravenous Fluid Use22(100.0)12(54.5)10(45.5)0.114
9.In-hospital Blood Transfusion28(100.0)16(57.1)12(42.9)0.030
10.Duration of hospital stay (days)9.0(5.0-14.0)9.0(5.0-13.0)9.0(3.0-14.0)0.237
11.Infection at admission13(100.0)7(53.8)6(46.2)0.270
12.Escharotomy6(100.0)3(50.0)3(50.0)0.681
13.Necrosectomy2(100.0)1(50.0)1(50.0)1.000
14.Tangential Excision52(100.0)18(34.6)34(65.4)0.287
15.Second Excision8(100.0)4(50.0)4(50.0)0.710
16.Graft use50(100.0)16(32.0)34(68.0)0.123
17.Graft type0.109
Autograft48(100.0)15(31.3)33(68.8)
Allograft1(100.0)01(100.0)
Both auto- and allografts1(100.0)1(100.0)0
17.Amputation2(100.0)2(100.0)00.156
18.Use of flap2(100.0)2(100.0)00.156
19.In-hospital mortality16(100.0)12(75.0)4(25.0)0.002

Overall, 43 (39.8%) had HCB and 65 (60.2%) had ASB. There was no significant difference in age, gender, place of burns, and pre-hospital intravenous fluid use in the two groups of scald patients. Baux score was higher in HCB (17.5, IQR = 14.0-27.0) but the median body surface area of burns was equal (15%) in both the groups. In total, 13 cases (12.0%) had an infection at presentation, which was higher in HCB (53.8%) than in ASB (46.2%). Neither of them were statistically significant.

The most commonly involved body parts were lower extremities (55.6%) followed by upper extremities (49.1%) and hands (40.7%). Of all the lower extremities burns, 36 (60.0%) were from ASB, and 24 (40.0%) were from HCB. None of these were statistically significant.

Tangential excision was performed in 52 (48.1%) patients, of which 34 (65.4%) and 18 (34.6%) belonged to ASB and HCB groups, respectively. Cases requiring the second excision (7.4%) were equally distributed in both groups (50.0%). Only two patients required flap and amputation and they were from the HCB group.

Overall mortality was 16 (14.8%). Out of total deaths, 12 (75%) were from HCB and four (25%) from the ASB group. This was statistically significant (p = 0.002). Requirement of in-hospital blood transfusion was significantly higher (p = 0.030) in HCB (57.1%) than ASB cases (42.9%). The median duration of hospital stay in both groups was nine days (IQR in HCB: 5.0-13.0, ASB: 3.0-14.0).

A significant association was seen between the dependent variable mortality and type of scalds (p = 0.002), place where burn injury took place (p = 0.010), and involvement of body parts like back (p = 0.015), buttock (0.001), perineum (p = 0.026) and lower extremities (0.005) (Table 2).

Table 2. Cross-tabulation of different variables with mortality outcome using Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test.

VariablesTotalMortality n(%)p-value
NoYes
GenderMale61(100.0)51(83.6)10(16.4)0.599
Female47(100.0)41(87.2)6(12.8)
Type of ScaldsHCB43(100.0)31(72.1)12(27.9)0.002
ASB65(100.0)61(93.8)4(6.2)
Place of burn injuryOutside5(100.0)3(60.0)2(40.0)0.010
Home41(100.0)31(75.6)10(24.4)
Kitchen62(100.0)58(93.5)4(6.5)
Head and NeckYes22(100.0)18(81.8)4(18.2)0.737
No86(100.0)74(86.0)12(14.0)
FaceYes38(100.0)33(86.8)5(13.2)0.721
No70(100.0)59(84.3)11(15.7)
ChestYes40(100.0)34(85.0)6(15.0)0.967
No68(100.0)58(85.3)10(14.7)
BackYes31(100.0)22(71.0)9(29.0)0.015
No77(100.0)70(90.9)7(9.1)
AbdomenYes36(100.0)28(77.8)8(22.2)0.125
No72(100.0)64(88.9)8(11.1)
ButtockYes29(100.0)19(65.5)10(34.5)0.001
No79(100.0)73(92.4)6(7.6)
PerineumYes9(100.0)5(55.6)4(44.4)0.026
No99(100.0)87(87.9)12(12.1)
Upper ExtremitiesYes53(100.0)46(86.8)7(13.2)0.644
No55(100.0)46(83.6)9(16.4)
HandsYes44(100.0)38(86.4)6(13.6)0.775
No64(100.0)54(84.4)10(15.6)
Lower ExtremitiesYes60(100.0)46(76.7)14(23.3)0.005
No48(100.0)46(95.8)2(4.2)
Pre-hospital intravenous fluidYes22(100.0)19(86.4)3(13.6)1
No86(100.0)73(84.9)13(15.1)
In-hospital Blood transfusionYes28(100.0)23(82.1)5(17.9)0.555
No80(100.0)69(86.3)11(13.8)
Infection at admissionYes13(100.0)11(84.6)2(15.4)1
No95(100.0)81(85.3)14(14.7)
Tangential ExcisionYes52(100.0)46(88.5)6(11.5)0.356
No56(100.0)46(82.1)10(17.9)
EscharotomyYes6(100.0)5(83.3)1(16.7)1
No102(100.0)87(85.3)15(14.7)
Graft (yes or no)Yes50(100.0)44(88.0)6(12.0)0.445
No58(100.0)48(82.8)10(17.2)
Graft TypeAutograft48(100.0)43(89.6)5(10.4)0.145
Allograft1(100.0)1(100.0)0(0.0)
Auto and Allo1(100.0)0(0.0)1(100.0)
FlapYes2(100.0)2(100.0)0(0.0)1
No106(100.0)90(84.9)16(15.1)
Second excisionYes8(100.0)7(87.5)1(12.5)1
No100(100.0)85(85.0)15(15.0)
AmputationYes2(100.0)2(100.0)0(0.0)1
No106(100.0)90(84.9)16(15.1)
NecrosectomyYes2(100.0)1(50.0)1(50.0)0.276
No106(100.0)91(85.8)15(14.2)

Logistic regression

Binary logistic regression analysis was run to check association across variables showing significant association by Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test and continuous variables namely, patient’s age, length of hospital stay, and Baux score (Table 3). Binary logistic regression showed higher mortality in HCB in comparison to ASB type of scald. Similarly, burns occurring outside the house had a higher association with mortality. Involvement of the back, buttock, perineum, and lower extremities was found to be associated with higher odds of mortality. However, adjusting independent variables and continuous variables (age, Baux score, length of stay) showed the only type of scald, age, and Baux score found to be associated with mortality. Every one-year increment in age has a 29.0% lower odds of occurrence of mortality event (adjusted OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99, p = 0.042). Likewise, every one-point increment in Baux score was associated with 19% higher odds of mortality (adjusted OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.32; p < 0.001).

Table 3. Cross-tabulation of different variables with mortality outcome using multinomial logistic regression.

MortalityuOR[95% Conf. Interval]zP>|z|aOR[95% Conf. Interval]zP>|z|
Type (ASB®)
HCB5.9032261.75794419.82322.870.004*40.931183.598128465.62042.990.003*
Place of burn (Kitchen®)
Outside9.6666661.2367975.554032.160.031*17.62378.22708961367.7321.290.196
Home4.6774191.35517716.14422.440.015*1.985822.288609313.663760.700.486
Back (No®)
Yes4.0909091.36478612.262392.520.012*.2862989.0305692.681378−1.100.273
Buttock (No®)
Yes6.4035092.06644919.843183.220.001*1.834235.242810913.856120.590.557
Perineum (No®)
Yes5.81.36500924.644532.380.017*.4362471.02993236.358065−0.610.544
LE (No®)
Yes6.9999931.50528832.551842.480.013*14.85796.9267597238.20521.910.057
Age.9742711.81734891.161321−0.290.771.7059931.5048816.9872142−2.040.042*
Length of hospital stay1.010032.95056341.0732220.320.747.9490669.85544891.05293−0.990.324
Baux1.0992791.0488551.1521273.950.000*1.1947871.0813581.3201143.500.000*
Constant.00015461.58e-06.0151046−3.750.000

Discussion

In our study, HCB and ASB accounted for 39.8% and 60.2% of total cases respectively. Although there are numeric differences across the two groups in terms of demographic and clinical profile, statistical significance exists in mortality and in-hospital blood transfusion only. Overall mortality was 16 (14.8%), out of which 12 (75%) were from HCB and 4 (25%) from the ASB group. Blood transfusion was required more in HCB cases (57.1%) than in ASB cases (42.9%). Mortality was higher in male gender (16.4%), burns outside the house (40.0%), body parts involving head and neck (18.2%), chest (15.0%), back (29.0%), abdomen (22.2%), buttocks (34.5%), perineum (44.4%), lower extremities (23.3%) and those who underwent escharotomy (16.7%) and necrosectomy (50.0%). Out of these, burns outside house (p = 0.010), involvement of buttocks (p = 0.001), back (p = 0.015), perineum (p = 0.026) and lower extremities (p = 0.005) were statistically significant.

A study in India18 reported the mortality in pediatric scald burns to be 3.1% which is lower compared to our number (14.8%). The plausible explanation for these differences is the difference in the site of study, sample size, and duration of the study. Another reason could be because our center is a national referral center for burns, so it is likely that more complicated and extensive cases are being referred here. Another study in Kashmir, India19 showed mortality from scalds to be 10.7% which is comparable to our findings. The most common place of burn event in our study was a kitchen (57.4%) which is comparable to a study (64.7%) done by Riedlinger DI et al. Similarly, grafting was done in 41.2% of patients which also corresponds to our study (46.3%).5 Another study6 depicted the incidence of accidental immersion and spill burns as 5.4% and 81.4%, respectively, which differs from our findings where immersion (hot cauldron) and spill burns comprise 39.8% and 60.2%, respectively. Similarly, a Turkish study3 showed that the most frequent cause of burn was scalding from spillage of hot water (59.7%) followed by bath scalding (i.e. immersion injury) accounting for 26% of cases. This is in line with the percentage of spill burns in our case. Likewise, in Japan, immersion burn (59.3%) was reported to be higher than spill burns (40.7%).16 This could be due to the provision of the bathtub in developed countries like Japan where there is a high chance of children climbing up and falling into bathtubs.

The most commonly involved body parts were lower limbs (55.6%) and upper limbs (49.1%) in our study. This finding contradicts a study by Drago DA et al,6 where the upper torso (25.3%) and upper limbs (24.1%) were maximally involved. A Japanese study16 revealed that the most common sites of immersion injury were trunk and legs (80%) followed by arms, and those of spill burns were trunk (91.7%) followed by head/neck and arms. In our case, the most common body parts involved were lower followed by upper extremities. The same study showed the average body surface area of scald as 11.3% which is slightly lower than ours (15.0%). Immersion-related burns were more likely to be located on the lower half of the body involving buttocks, thighs, legs, and feet in a French study.17 Another also found out that most scalds occurred on the upper limbs.20 These discrepancies could be due to different sample sizes and sites of study. The mean total body surface area reported in a study from Arizona21 was 8.0% which is much lower than ours (15.0%). The difference could be due to our center being a referral center where complicated burn cases are being referred from all over the country. However, the mean length of hospital stay in this study21 (8 days) is similar to our study (9 days).

In a study from Ontario,15 Children with spill burns had a shorter average length of hospital stay (10.8 days) compared to those involved in bathtub immersion burns (18.3 days). In our study, the median duration of hospital stay was equal in both the groups of scalds (nine days) though it was not statistically significant. Likewise, in the same study, the mean age in both scald groups was 1.8 years whereas, in our setting, the median age in HCB and ASB were 3.0 and 2.5 years, respectively. A study from Beijing22 showed that the scald burns most commonly occurred in the kitchen which supports our result.

There are some limitations of this study that need to be mentioned. The number of cases was lower than expected because of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Lack of complete data also excluded a significant portion of cases from the study. The data also fails to analyze the economic status of children which could make them susceptible not only to a certain type of scald burn but also limits the access to first aid and primary care, hence affecting the outcome. Moreover, this is a single-center study over a short period of time so, the results may not be applicable to the whole country. For that purpose, multi-center studies conducted over a longer duration are recommended.

Conclusions

ASB was more common in our setting. The mortality was higher in HCB group. These were more likely to require an in-hospital blood transfusion compared to patients with ASB. There were no other significant differences between these two groups. The risk of mortality was significantly higher in burn events occurring outside, and those involving the back, buttocks, perineum, and lower extremities. So, special focus should be given to these factors during management.

Data availability

Figshare: Comparison of Accidental Pediatric Scald Burns in a Tertiary Care Center: Hot Cauldron Burns versus Accidental Spill Burns.sav. http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16583501.23

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Oct 2021
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Nakarmi KK, Pathak BD, Shrestha D et al. Comparison of accidental pediatric scald burns in a tertiary care center: hot cauldron burns versus accidental spill burns [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 10:1086 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73840.2)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 2
VERSION 2
PUBLISHED 10 Jan 2022
Revised
Views
5
Cite
Reviewer Report 13 Jan 2022
Saidur Rahman Mashreky, Centre for Injury Prevention and Research Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh 
Approved
VIEWS 5
Thank you for ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Mashreky SR. Reviewer Report For: Comparison of accidental pediatric scald burns in a tertiary care center: hot cauldron burns versus accidental spill burns [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 10:1086 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.119819.r119126)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 26 Oct 2021
Views
9
Cite
Reviewer Report 21 Dec 2021
Roshan Acharya, Department of Internal Medicine, Cape Fear Valley Medical Center, Fayetteville, NC, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 9
  1. The authors have tried to compare the prevalence and outcome of hot cauldron burns versus accidental spill burns in a tertiary care hospital.
     
  2. The authors have also explored various factors that are
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Acharya R. Reviewer Report For: Comparison of accidental pediatric scald burns in a tertiary care center: hot cauldron burns versus accidental spill burns [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 10:1086 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.77525.r100987)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
14
Cite
Reviewer Report 03 Nov 2021
Saidur Rahman Mashreky, Centre for Injury Prevention and Research Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh 
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 14
Thank you for conducting an exciting study in the field of burn prevention.

The study's title is 'Comparison of accidental pediatric scald burns in a tertiary care center: hot cauldron burns versus accidental spill burns'. The study ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Mashreky SR. Reviewer Report For: Comparison of accidental pediatric scald burns in a tertiary care center: hot cauldron burns versus accidental spill burns [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2022, 10:1086 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.77525.r97945)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
  • Author Response 10 Jan 2022
    Bishnu Pathak, Department of Internal Medicine, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal
    10 Jan 2022
    Author Response
    Dear Sir,

    Thank you very much for reviewing our article and for providing healthy, constructive, and relevant comments. We owe you a great debt of gratitude for the same.
    ... Continue reading
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT
  • Author Response 10 Jan 2022
    Bishnu Pathak, Department of Internal Medicine, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, College of Medicine, Kathmandu, 44600, Nepal
    10 Jan 2022
    Author Response
    Dear Sir,

    Thank you very much for reviewing our article and for providing healthy, constructive, and relevant comments. We owe you a great debt of gratitude for the same.
    ... Continue reading

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2
VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 26 Oct 2021
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.